DOCSLIB.ORG

The Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019 Jillian K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019 Jillian K The Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019 Jillian K. Peterson & James A. Densley November 2019 About The Violence Project The Violence Project is a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to reducing violence in society and improving related policy and practice through research and analysis. We conduct high-quality, high impact, research for public consumption. We also develop and deliver education and training to share research findings and prevent violence. We provide media commentaries and support concerned citizens, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, workplaces, houses of worship, and other public or private clients in their strategic response to violence. Visit us at www.theviolenceproject.org. About This Violence Project In November 2019, The Violence Project will publicly release the largest, most comprehensive database of mass shooters in the United States, developed by professors Jillian Peterson and James Densley and a team of students at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. The entire database is downloadable for free at www.theviolenceproject.org, but it is vital that it is only used for the purpose of better understanding or preventing mass shootings. This report accompanies the public launch, providing some background on the project and a summary of topline findings. The Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019, was supported by Award No. 2018-75-CX-0023, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. The Violence Project I 1 About the Authors Jillian K. Peterson, PhD, launched her career as a special investigator in New York City, researching and developing the psycho-social life histories of men facing the death penalty, which were used in their sentencing hearings. In that office she developed a saying - the worse the crime, the worse the story - and it was always true. Since then, Jill has led large-scale research studies on mental illness and crime, school shooting prevention, and mass violence, which have received national media attention. She is a sought-after national trainer and speaker on issues related to mental illness and violence, trauma, forensic psychology, and mass violence. Jill earned her Master’s in social ecology and Doctorate in psychology and social behavior from the University of California, Irvine. She is also trained in restorative justice, violence mediation, crisis intervention, de-escalation, and suicide prevention. Jill is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Hamline University and the faculty director of the Center for Justice and Law. James A. Densley, PhD, is a Professor of Criminal Justice and University Scholar at Metropolitan State University, part of the Minnesota State system. He is also a Fellow of the Hamline University Center for Justice and Law and Visiting Professor at the University of West London. Born and raised in England, James first moved to the United States to teach special education in the New York City public schools. After earning his Doctorate in sociology from the University of Oxford, he quickly established himself as one of the world’s leading experts on street gangs and youth violence, including cyber violence. James’ work has attracted global media attention. He is the author of three books, including the award-winning How Gangs Work (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 40 refereed articles in leading social science journals, and over 50 book chapters, essays, and other non-refereed works. The Violence Project I 2 Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019 Jillian K. Peterson, Ph.D. James A. Densley, Ph.D. © 2019. This paper is covered by the Creative Commons “Attribution–NoDerivs– NonCommercial” license (see http://creativecommons.org). It may be reproduced in its entirety only if The Violence Project LLC is credited, a link to the Project’s website is provided, and no charge is imposed. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Project’s permission. Please let the Project know if you reprint. Suggested citation: Peterson, J.K. & Densley, J.A. (2019). The Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United States, 1966–2019. Saint Paul, MN: The Violence Project. Retrieved from https://www.theviolenceproject.org. The Violence Project I 3 Introduction The United States has not one gun violence problem, but several (Densley & Peterson, 2017; PERF, 2019). Everyday gun violence claims or changes hundreds of lives each week, disproportionately young Black and Latino men. In 2017 alone, the Centers for Disease Control reported 14,542 homicides by discharge of firearms. About 106 of those deaths were attributable to mass public shootings, according to our data—the highest of any year recorded because of the Las Vegas shooting that claimed an unprecedented 58 lives. The fact that mass shootings account for fewer than 1% of all firearm homicides does not diminish their extraordinary tragedy—mass shootings cause damage and devastation far beyond that which is measured in lives lost (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). Mass shootings are focusing events (Fleming et al., 2016). And while they are statistically rare (Harding et al., 2002; to the extent that the actual risk of being killed in a mass shooting is smaller than the risk of being struck by lightning), in the United States they are certainly routine. Mass shootings have been occurring since at least August 1903, when a war veteran deliberately fired into a crowd of people in Winfield Kansas, killing nine and wounding 25, before turning the revolver on himself. In the first half of the 20th Century, there were a handful of mass shootings, including the infamous “walk of death” in September 1949, where another ex-military man, targeting local shopkeepers whom he believed had aggrieved him, killed 13 in Camden, New Jersey. These early crimes didn’t lack for publicity, but the watershed moment for public awareness of mass shootings was the summer of 1966. In August of that year, a former Eagle Scout and Marine shot and killed 15 people from a 28th floor observation deck on the University of Texas The Violence Project I 4 campus in Austin. What set the Texas clocktower shooting apart was that it unfolded live over the radio and the new medium of television—reporters on the scene described the events as they happened. Our study goes back to the Texas tower shooting in 1966 for this reason— mass shootings since then have received sufficient news coverage to be able to reconstruct and study them. The term “mass shooting” is quite new. Before the early 2000s, it was much more common to speak of massacres, slayings, rampage shootings, mass killings, multiple homicides, bloodbaths, even “going postal.” A mass shooting is a modern variant on mass murder, but the more generic term lumps together cases that vary along what researchers agree are important dimensions: time, place, and method (Duwe, 2007). Someone who kills their victims in separate events is different from someone who kills them all at once. A person who kills in public is different from a person who kills in private, especially when private victims tend to be family members; and different still from a contract killer, bank robber, or gang member who kills in the commission of another crime. An arsonist or bomber is different from an active shooter. There is no universally accepted definition of a mass shooting. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially define one nor do they use the term in their Uniform Crime Report statistics; instead, federal authorities tend to focus on “active shooters” (e.g., Blair & Schweit, 2014). In the 1980s, however, the FBI established a definition for “mass murder” as “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” excluding the offender if they committed suicide or were killed in a justifiable homicide (Krouse & Richardson, 2015, p. 4). By extension, the most commonly accepted definition of a mass shooting is an incident in which The Violence Project I 5 four or more victims are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours (Duwe, 2007). In this tradition, we follow the Congressional Research Service definition: …a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle). (Krouse & Richardson, 2015, p. 10) We acknowledge the limits of this definition. Every mass casualty event is a tragedy and many factors influence whether a threshold of four or more people killed is reached, including the accuracy of the shooter, the type and caliber of weapon used, the number of rounds fired, proximity to the nearest hospital, and if/how many bullets hit vital organs. However, the number of deaths is the strongest predictor of media coverage (Duwe, 2000), which is necessary to accurately track mass shootings. By focusing only on public events, we exclude domestic mass shootings (if 50% or more of victims are non-relatives killed in public then we include them), which are the most common form of mass shootings (Krouse & Richardson, 2015). We also exclude mass shootings attributable to underlying criminal activity, and events where a firearm was not the primary means of death. A broader definition with a threshold of fewer deaths, non-fatal shootings, or any means or motive would certainly yield more cases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History of the Law of Assisted Dying in the United States
    SMU Law Review Volume 73 Issue 1 Article 8 2020 A History of the Law of Assisted Dying in the United States Alan Meisel University of Pittsburgh, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Alan Meisel, A History of the Law of Assisted Dying in the United States, 73 SMU L. REV. 119 (2020) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol73/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. A HISTORY OF THE LAW O F ASSISTED DYING IN THE UNITED STATES Alan Meisel* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 120 II. TERMINOLOGY ........................................ 120 III. HISTORY OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE . 123 A. THE LAW S O F SUICIDE AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ..... 124 B. THE LAW O F ASSISTED SUICIDE ....................... 125 IV. THE MODERN AMERICAN LAWS OF HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, ATTEMPTED SUICIDE, AND ASSISTED SUICIDE ................................................. 125 V. EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL ...................................... 127 A. NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY ...... 127 B. THE RENEWAL OF THE DEBATE, POST-WORLD WAR II ............................................... 129 C. THE EFFECT OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY AND THE “RIGHT TO DIE” ...................................... 130 D. THE “RIGHT TO DIE” AS A TRANSITIONAL STAGE TO ACTIVELY HASTENING DEATH ........................ 132 VI. THE GULF BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE . 135 A. PROSECUTION OF LAY PEOPLE .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Felony Murder -- Homicide by Fright David A
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 44 | Number 3 Article 16 4-1-1966 Criminal Law -- Felony Murder -- Homicide by Fright David A. Irvin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David A. Irvin, Criminal Law -- Felony Murder -- Homicide by Fright, 44 N.C. L. Rev. 844 (1966). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol44/iss3/16 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 44 Criminal Law-Felony Murder-Homicide by Fright X, in committing armed robbery of a tavern, fires a warning shot into the ceiling to show he means business. Y, a customer in the tavern and one of the intended victims, has a heart attack and dies. May X be convicted of first degree murder? In State v. McKeiver,1 a New Jersey Superior Court, applying its felony- murder statute,2 held that this situation was sufficient to support an indictment for first degree murder. This note will attempt to examine the felony-murder rule, its purpose and the validity of this extended application. At common law the felony-murder rule was simply that a homi- cide resulting from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony was designated as murder.' Today, the rule, as generally codified in this country, is that a murder4 committed in the perpetra- tion or the attempted perpetration of one of the "dangerous" felonies5 designated by statute is a first degree offense.' There are '89 N.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending Police-Only Responses to Mental Health 911 Calls
    Dispatch Triage, Alternative Responders and Co-Response: Ending Police-Only Responses To Mental Health 911 Calls Communities United Against Police Brutality Dispatch Triage, Alternative Responders, and Co-Response: Ending Police-Only Responses to Mental Health 911 Calls Communities United Against Police Brutality Cover art, tables and graphics designed by Abigail Grewenow This white paper is dedicated to Archer Amorosi, Benjamin Evans, Kobe Heisler, Travis Jordan, Keaton Larson, Phil Quinn and others who lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement during a mental health crisis. With deep appreciation to the volunteers who spent many hours researching, writing, editing and reviewing this white paper. Our goal is to end the practice of police-only contacts for people in mental health crisis through presenting evidence and practical information to enable the necessary changes. We believe we have achieved this goal. --Volunteers with the Mental Health Working Group of Communities United Against Police Brutality August 2020 As someone who’s been a mental health practitioner for over 35 years, I cannot recommend this position paper strongly enough. Individuals and our society at large are still suffering from the broken promises of the mental health system’s de-institutionalization process that began in the 1980s and has flooded our streets, our prisons, and our homes with people who cannot access the mental health care they desperately need. Then, when these people with chronic mental health challenges are in their most desperate moments of crisis, their need is often met with a visit from the police, which further threatens their life and their well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co- Felon William L
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 | Number 4 A Symposium on Legislation June 1956 Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co- Felon William L. McLeod Jr. Repository Citation William L. McLeod Jr., Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co-Felon, 16 La. L. Rev. (1956) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol16/iss4/21 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. XVI Orleans is denied constitutional jurisdiction to establish paternity in civil cases as well as in prosecutions under R.S. 14:74 by the present decision, a constitutional amendment will be neces- sary if it is desired that the juvenile court exercise jurisdiction over such cases.24 Regardless of whether an adequate civil rem- edy is provided or the criminal procedure is revised to meet the Supreme Court's objection, it is important that some procedure be made available to impose the burden of supporting the illegitimate offspring of known fathers on those parents rather than on a welfare agency of the state. Jack Brittain CRIMINAL LAW - FELONY-MURDER - KILLING OF CO-FELON In the retreat from a store at which they had committed armed robbery, two felons were pursued by the proprietor, who fatally shot one of them. The surviving felon was indicted under the felony-murder statute. The lower court sustained the de- fendant's demurrer to the evidence, and the Commonwealth ap- pealed.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: Homicide
    Chapter 11: Homicide Chapter Overview: Chapter eleven discusses the fourth category of crime against the person, criminal homicide. This is considered to be the most serious of all criminal offenses. There are four different types of homicide: justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, murder, and manslaughter. Criminal homicide is divided into murder and manslaughter, with the distinction being the presence or lack of malice. Murder can include a broad group of crimes, such as depraved heart murders, which is a killing caused by an extreme level of negligence on the part of perpetrator, and felony murder, which is killing that takes place during the course of another felony crime. There are also separate distinctions within the terms murder and manslaughter that serve to identify different levels of crime. Manslaughter is divided into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter involved a heat-of-the-moment decision made without malice. Involuntary manslaughter results from a criminal degree of negligence and in some states, like Florida, can also include categories like vehicular manslaughter. Murder is also divided into two categories: first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The distinction between the two that makes first-degree murder the most serious is that it includes premeditation and deliberation. This means that the perpetrator took time to consider his or her decision to commit the act for some length of time prior to the murder. This chapter also addresses important questions such as when human life begins and ends. Due the limits of medical science, common law utilized the rule that a person could not be criminally responsible for the murder of a fetus unless the child is born alive.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998
    T O EN F J TM U R ST U.S. Department of Justice A I P C E E D B O J C S F A V Office of Justice Programs F M O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice Research Forum Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research 1998: Bridging the Gaps: Collaborations on Lethal Violence Research, Theory, and Prevention Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noël Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 May 1999 NCJ 175709 Jeremy Travis Director Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Table of Contents 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research......................................1 Discussion 1997 Keynote Kick-Off: What Works? David Kennedy...............................................................3 Building Bridges Between Research and Practice: Youth Violence Prevention Rich Rosenfeld and Troy Miles Anthony Braga, David Kennedy, and Tito Whittington Don Faggiani and Colleen McLaughlin.............................................4 Bridging the Gaps for the Virginia “Cradle-to-Grave” Homicide Project Colleen R.
    [Show full text]
  • FELON's RESPONSIBILITY for the LETHAL ACTS of OTHERS Norval Morris T
    [Vol. 105 THE FELON'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LETHAL ACTS OF OTHERS Norval Morris t Far from shrinking under protracted criticism, the felony-murder rule has recently demonstrated a tendency to expand. In particular, courts in Pennsylvania and California have greatly extended the scope of this doctrine. Though their purpose of deterring the commission of certain felonies is commendable, the means selected appears to be socially unwise and is based on reasoning not free from substantial analytic and historical errors. Throughout the Anglo-American system of criminal justice, those who engage in certain felonies and kill the subject of their felonious designs, or those who kill while forcibly resisting lawful arrest, may be convicted of murder. Where, however, death is caused by the retaliatory or defensive action of a victim of an intended felony, or by a police officer or other person assisting him, the criminal responsibility of the felon for that death is less clear. In such circumstances an innocent bystander, a policeman or one of the felons may be killed by an act of justified resistance to the felony or by an act intended to prevent the criminal's escape. Are the felons, by virtue of their felony, murderers? Likewise, if during the course of a felony one of the felons from extraneous motives kills one of his fellow conspirators, the criminal liability of the surviving conspirators, other than the actual killer, is uncertain. Decisions in Pennsylvania and California have held the surviving felons guilty of murder in the first degree in all the above situations. It is proposed to review these cases, to search out the suggested basis of liability, and to urge the repudiation of this extension of the felony- murder rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 200 - Crimes Against the Person
    CHAPTER 200 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON HOMICIDE SECTION 200.010 “Murder” defined. SECTION 200.020 Malice: Express and implied defined. SECTION 200.035 Circumstances mitigating first degree murder. SECTION 200.040 “Manslaughter” defined. SECTION 200.050 “Voluntary manslaughter” defined. SECTION 200.060 When killing punished as murder. SECTION 200.070 “Involuntary manslaughter” defined. SECTION 200.080 Punishment for voluntary manslaughter. SECTION 200.090 Punishment for involuntary manslaughter. SECTION 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. SECTION 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. SECTION 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. SECTION 200.150 Justifiable or excusable homicide. SECTION 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. SECTION 200.180 Excusable homicide by misadventure. SECTION 200.190 Justifiable or excusable homicide not punishable. SECTION 200.200 Killing in self-defense. SECTION 200.210 Killing of unborn quick child; penalty. SECTION 200.240 Owner of animal that kills human being guilty of manslaughter under certain circumstances; penalty. SECTION 200.260 Death resulting from unlawful manufacture or storage of explosives; penalty. BODILY INJURY SECTION 200.275 Justifiable infliction or threat of bodily injury not punishable. MAYHEM SECTION 200.280 Definition; penalty. SECTION 200.290 Instrument or manner of inflicting injury immaterial. SECTION 200.300 Injury not resulting in permanent injury; defendant may be convicted of assault. KIDNAPPING SECTION 200.310 Degrees. SECTION 200.320 Kidnapping in first degree: Penalties. SECTION 200.330 Kidnapping in second degree: Penalties. SECTION 200.340 Penalty for aiding or abetting. SECTION 200.350 Where proceedings may be instituted; consent is not defense. SECTION 200.357 Law enforcement officer required to take child into protective custody if child in danger of being removed from jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • KM Thesis-Master 20160925-Final
    The Construction of the Gang in British Columbia: Mafioso, Gangster, or Thug? An Examination of the Uniqueness of the BC Gangster Phenomenon By Keiron McConnell M.Sc. Public Order Policing, Leicester University, 2004 B.G.S., Open University of BC, 2002 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Policing, Security and Community Safety John Grieve Centre Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities © Keiron McConnell 2015 London Metropolitan University September 2015 Abstract This thesis explores the structure, demographics, and history of gangs in British Columbia (BC), Canada, through a social constructionist lens. The purpose of this research is for the reader to consider the current state of gangs in BC as inherently different from other places in the world, to assist in understanding why there may be misconceptions, and to promote the research and implementation of more appropriate context-specific interventions. Building on previous work conducted as a Vancouver Police officer of over 27 years, I participated in field observations with gang units in Toronto and Hobbema, Canada; Chicago and Los Angeles, USA; and London, England. I also examined gang typologies and definitions in academic literature as a segment of the historical context of gang research and highlight how these bodies of literature contribute to the social construction of gangs. A historical review of media-reported gang violence in BC from 1903 to 2012 demonstrates that gang violence is not a new phenomenon, and its history is an essential element in the constructed concept of the gang. As well, I conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who either police gangs, work with gangs, or were former gang members to get their perspectives on the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use
    JULY 2019 Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data WWW.VPC.ORG FIREARM JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES AND NON-FATAL SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER | 1 COPYRIGHT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Copyright © July 2019 Violence Policy Center The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national nonprofit educational organization that conducts research and public education on violence in America and provides information and analysis to policymakers, journalists, advocates, and the general public. For a complete list of VPC publications with document links, please visit http://www.vpc.org/publications/. To learn more about the Violence Policy Center, or to make a tax-deductible contribution to help support our work, please visit www.vpc.org. 2 | VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER FIREARM JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES AND NON-FATAL SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE INTRODUCTION Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes. In 2016, across the nation there were only 274 justifiable homicides1 involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).2 That same year, there were 10,341 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2016, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 37 criminal homicides.3 And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year.4 This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the use of firearms in justifiable homicides.
    [Show full text]
  • The Felony-Murder Rule: in Search of a Viable Doctrine
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 23 Number 2 Volume 23, Spring 1978, Number 2 Article 8 The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of A Viable Doctrine Jeanne Hall Seibold Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Criminal Law Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FELONY-MURDER RULE: IN SEARCH OF A VIABLE DOCTRINE* INTRODUCTION When a homicide has occurred during the perpetration of a felony, the felony-murder doctrine recognizes the intent to commit the underlying felony as a substitute for the mens rea normally required to support a murder conviction.' As a result of widespread recognition of the harshness * This article is a student work prepared by Jeanne Hall Seibold, a member of the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. Under the felony-murder doctrine, the mens rea is established by proof of intent to commit the underlying felony, on a theory of constructive intent. When first applied in England, "constructive malice" was applied to all killing resulting from the commission of any unlaw- ful act. E. COKE, THIRD INSTITUTE 56 (6th ed. 1680). Foster dictated that the unlawful act must be a felony. M. FOSTER, CROWN LAW 258 (2d ed. 1791). See 4 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 192-93 [hereinafter cited as BLACKSTONE], in which the author restated the rule: [W]hen an involuntary killing happens in consequence of an unlawful act, it will be either murder or manslaughter .
    [Show full text]
  • Homicide Survey: Glossary of Terms
    Homicide Survey Glossary of terms Accused An accused person is someone against whom enough information exists to lay a charge in connection with a homicide incident. Gang-related homicide Gang-related homicides are those reported by police to occur as a consequence of activities involving an organized crime group or street gang. Homicide A homicide occurs when a person directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being. Homicide is either culpable (murder, manslaughter or infanticide) or non-culpable (not an offence and, therefore, not included in the Homicide Survey). Deaths caused by criminal negligence, suicide and accidental or justifiable homicide (e.g. self-defence) are not included. Homicide count The homicide count reflects the number of homicide victims that become known to police and subsequently reported to the Homicide Survey in a given year. Since some homicides become known to police long after they occur, there are generally a few homicides included in a given year’s total that occurred in previous years. Homicide rate This technique standardizes data to permit comparisons over time and for different population sizes. The homicide rate is based on the number of victims per 100,000 population. Incident An incident is defined as the occurrence of one (or more) criminal offence(s) during one single, distinct event, regardless of the number of victims. If there are multiple victims or multiple accused persons, the offences must occur at the same location and at the same time if they are to be included within the same incident. The incident count will normally be lower than the victim count due to incidents involving multiple victims.
    [Show full text]